Aryan95614/aerograph-asrs huggingface dataset:
Aircraft: SMALL AIRCRAFT
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

I was dodging thunderstorms enroute to BHM and approaching from an abnormal direction; I was planning on the localizer 24 approach; and had that briefed; tuned; and set on two different navs. I picked up the airport around 18 NM out; and was cleared for the visual approach; at that time went visual; mistook Runway 6 for 24 and no longer used my navs for course guidance. After being cleared for the approach I was switched to Tower; after checking in with Tower I was cleared to land 24; not seconds after getting cleared to land 24 there was a high frequency tone that I originally thought was being transmitted by an aircraft (I was later informed that this is a known issue from the TV towers on the hill southwest of the field) and at this stage of the flight needing to focus; there were storms just east of the field; I turned my radio down which unintentionally was all the way down. I immediately turned in to land on what I mistook for Runway 24. From what I understand Tower did try and call me to advise me of my lining up to the wrong runway but due to the interference from the antennas I had my radios all the way down. It wasn't until I was well off the runway after calling for taxi that I realized my radios were all the way down. The reporter clarified the location of the antennas on a ridge line about 7 NM southwest of the field. A General Aviation pilot reports being cleared for the visual approach to Runway 24 at BHM but becomes confused and lines up for Runway 6. A loud squeal from the radio caused by TV antennas 7 NM southwest of the field causes the radio volume to be turned way down and calls from the Tower go unheard.
Aircraft: A319
Phase of flight: Taxi
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown

During taxi in ZZZ for departure; while trying to determine the cause of late Weight [and Balance documentation]; operations requested us to return to gate in order to resolve a loading issue with dangerous goods loaded in the aft hold. First issue was the lack of documentation regarding the dangerous goods. We had not received any notification about dangerous goods prior to communicating with operations during taxi out. Second issue was the incorrect loading of the dangerous goods. This was obviously detected by ramp; and was the reason we were unable to get final weights during taxi out. Issue three; If ramp had not discovered; or trapped the loading error; we would have departed with an improperly secured load of unknown dangerous goods. After return to stand; the load was determined to be dry ice of a quantity not requiring prior notification to the flight deck. The ramp supervisor explained that only two bags had been used to surround the cargo; when four bags should have used. He described it as a calculation error. A319 First Officer reported Dispatch notification of Hazmat cargo documentation errors and incorrect DG cargo loading configuration during taxi. Aircraft returned to gate to correct the errors prior to departure.
Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Parked
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance

Operated Aircraft X. During the preflight exterior inspection of the aircraft I noticed some temporary repairs were made to some delamination in the area of the ADG door. I noticed aluminum 'speed tape' was applied to the area of the ADG door and the speed tape had been applied so that the door would not be unobstructed from opening. The door was taped over so that it may have been prevented from opening up successfully. I notified Maintenance Control. Contract maintenance was brought to the plane and reapplied the tape so that it wouldn't tape over the door. The Flight was then signed off and flown to ZZZ1 without issue.Improper maintenance procedures were performed on this aircraft day(s) earlier that allowed the ADG door to be taped over. Not only was the aircraft returned to service and operated an unknown amount of flights with improper maintenance performed; it also went undetected by at least one flight crew who flew this aircraft to ZZZ the night before. This situation was a safety issue that needed to be fixed before departure. Adding to the stress of managing this event in terms of coordination; making announcements; continuing to contact Dispatch and keep everyone informed; Duty Pilot and ZZZ2 Chief Pilot decided to try and intervene and force me to board the aircraft before Maintenance had arrived. I made the Pilot in Command decision to hold boarding the aircraft until Maintenance had arrived because I know it wouldn't take long to board; and COVID-19 concerns with keeping people confined to an aircraft longer than necessary. We knew we weren't departing immediately and there was no sense in boarding an aircraft in the middle of summer in the south with a pandemic going on until I knew when we would be able to depart. It was distracting to my duties as PIC to have management continuously interrupting my situation and duties with their concerns. That's not the time and place for those to be brought up. Pushing captains against their PIC decisions when they're making sound decisions in the interest of safety and health should be addressed as well as the maintenance repair issues. Pilot reported questionable maintenance procedures regarding the temporary repair of delamination in the area of the ADG door.
Aircraft: B737
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

We were inside DYLIN on the PHLBO Arrival at 6;000 feet. Approach was vectoring is on downwind for 22L at EWR. Were given traffic at 10 o'clock; not sure of the distance but it was at least several miles. Traffic was a VFR Cherokee at 5;500 feet heading from our left to right. [We] had traffic on TCAS first; altitude showed 400 feet below us. Picked up traffic visually then received a 'monitor vertical speed' RA (Resolution Advisory). We were above the TCAS pitch area and in level flight so we maintained pitch and altitude. Traffic passed beneath us. ATC said traffic was 500 feet beneath us; TCAS said 400 feet. Received 'clear of conflict.' Continued to EWR. I did not notify ATC of the RA as we did not have to deviate from our clearance. B737 Captain reported receiving a Resolution Advisory caused by VFR traffic during approach.
Aircraft: MEDIUM TRANSPORT; LOW WING; 2 TURBOJET ENG
Phase of flight: Final Approach
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

Assigned a heading; we were told to expect the Visual Approach to RWY 24 into TTN. Tonight we were being vectored and I noticed we were on a downwind; but we were further south of what would be a standard left traffic pattern. About midfield left downwind; we advised ATC we had the field in sight. After a short period of time we were issue a vector of 010 and cleared the Visual 24. I noticed that a vector of 010 would have us turning base to final at what I estimated to be a 2.5 mile final with the aircraft setup for a 129 degree intercept. We continued to descend and level off at a 1000' in order to fully configure and complete checks. After level off; we received a low altitude alert from TTN Tower. We were approximately 3 NM from the extended centerline of RWY 24. We turned base to final at 1000' white over white on the PAPI. We were stabilized; acquired normal glide path at about 2.0 NM. What occurred was not unsafe. However; a normal traffic pattern which I have flown many times into this same airport would have eliminated any guess work and we wouldn't have received the low altitude alert from Tower. During a normal visual pattern approach; I can discern distance from the runway off the wing and appropriate altitude in relation to the runway visually. An overlay extended centerline is used only to confirm the correct RWY. With a vector to a visual at that kind of intercept angle; while I can see the airport; you're forcing crews to estimate where altitude should be in space by referencing the overlay extended centerline relative to a 3 degree glide path; requiring our heads to be down. The vector we were given tonight required us to turn final less than 3 miles from the runway; requiring us to be fully configured and at approach speed (135KIAS) prior to making the base to final turn. During vector to visual approaches; I recommend that ATC communicate what distance the vector to final will achieve from the runway. Additionally; altitude guidance should be given with vector angles less than 90 degrees from the intended runway. I interpret 'cleared the visual approach' to mean I am free to maneuver so as to conduct a normal stabilized approach by visual reference to the runway while honoring published approach profiles. That's precisely what we did tonight and we got an altitude alert from TTN Tower. What I can do differently in the future to prevent future occurrence is to use the CAT D published circling altitude if there is an IAP to serve as a better way to plan our descent near the airport. In this instance; I was thinking visual approach during the approach; but I could have very easily drawn a 3.6 NM circle around Runway 24 and used that as a reference as well. ATC does a terrific job here; this is the first time I have ever had a nonstandard event here and I have been in into TTN dozens of times in [recent] years. Medium Transport Captain reported receiving a low altitude ATC alert on a visual approach to TTN airport.
Aircraft: SMALL AIRCRAFT
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR

I was acting as a CFI on a training flight with a student returning to our home base PAO when we flew past a drone in the traffic pattern. My student was flying. We were entering the left downwind for runway 31 at PAO from a standard 45 degree entry when I spotted an unmanned drone 2-3 feet in size at our altitude; which was the standard left pattern altitude for 31 at PAO. We passed within approximately 100 feet of the drone and took no evasive action. It appeared to be hovering with no discernible motion. My student indicated that he did not see it. There were no prior traffic advisories from PAO tower or PAO ATIS regarding the drone or drone activity in the area. I reported the drone to PAO tower and tower made a broadcast to all aircraft of our drone report.By the time I saw the drone and recognized it as such; we had nearly flown past it. Such a small vehicle is difficult to spot until very close in. I usually focus on traffic scanning at distances that are further away. I had recently attended a meeting at PAO for CFIs where reports of nearby drone activity was mentioned and I think this helped me recognize it as a drone more quickly. Some pilot awareness of local drone activity may help facilitate close-in visual scanning and faster recognition of these small vehicles. Legislation requiring firmware in these commercially manufactured drones that prevents operation outside of the FAA limits would improve safety. The distribution of information to drone purchasers regarding local flight restrictions; airport locations; etc. may also help prevent this incident from occurring. To put this event into some context; bird activity also creates hazards at PAO and I have had several near collisions with birds there and elsewhere flying over many years. However; birds usually dive out of the way while the drone did not. This drone also likely weighed significantly more than a bird. An instructor with his flying student was entering a 45 degree left downwind for PAO Runway 31 at 1;000 FT when he detected a UAV about 2-3 FT wide; approximately 100 FT beneath his aircraft.
Aircraft: CITATION EXCEL (C560XL)
Phase of flight: Climb
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

While executing the RUUDY 4 departure out of TEB off runway 24; I leveled at 1;500 feet as required; with 1;500 feet set in the altitude alerter at the time. About the same time I was leveling off and adjusting power to keep the speed in check; my FO reached over and set 2;000 FT on the altitude alerter; while saying something I did not hear clearly; which distracted me somewhat. At about that same time; I heard an altitude alert and saw 2;000 FT in amber in the alerter window and thought I was late in beginning the climb to cross RUUDY at 2;000 FT. In so thinking; I started the climb without verifying that we had in fact passed WENTZ first. Just as we were reaching 2;000 FT; I realized my mistake and ATC called and mentioned our mistake. We acknowledged our error; apologized sincerely; after which he cleared us on. The controller was very professional and told us there was no traffic conflict this time but did emphasize the importance of adhering to the procedure for obvious reasons and to be more careful in the future. Set the highest altitude for the procedure in the altitude alerter during initial set up; rather than the initial limit; to limit the amount of knob turning necessary at a busy time during climb out; or if not; the pilot setting the new altitude 'stating' that he/she is setting the altitude for the next restriction but that 'we haven't passed the previous restriction fix yet'; if such is the case. Me; the pilot flying doing the professional thing and actually verifying having passed the previous altitude restricted fix. Something I did not do this particular time. Use the autopilot sooner in the departure to reduce the work load at a busy time. One of my tendencies is to like to hand fly on climb out up to 10;000 FT and below 10;000 FT on decent in order to stay proficient. We were on the RUUDY 4 after we leveled of at 1;500 FT we started to climb to 2;000 FT before we got to TASKA [WENTZ]. New York Approach questioned us and said it was not a problem just don't do it again. Do not airline me all day and give me a short show and a 3:30 wake up my local time. This leads to task saturation. CE560 flight crew reports climbing early on the RUUDY 4 departure from TEB when distracted by the altitude alerter being reset to 2;000 feet by the First Officer.
Aircraft: SKYLANE 182/RG TURBO SKYLANE/RG
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

During landing the wind drifted my aircraft off the runway into the grass. I applied full opposite rudder. I could have applied more aileron into the wind in my ground roll. There was no damage to the airplane. I pulled back onto the runway and taxied aircraft to parking. C182RG pilot reported a runway excursion following a crosswind landing.
Aircraft: SMALL TRANSPORT
Phase of flight: Climb
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Aircraft X departed ZZZ en route to ZZZZ Center. Aircraft Y was orbiting in the special use airspace area. Sector X was having equipment issues and was having trouble communicating with the aircraft on frequency. I was trying to get the supervisors attention to see if he needed me to take the sector. I looked back and realized that Aircraft Y was still eastbound heading towards Aircraft X. It was too late to stop Aircraft X from climbing through. I tried to turn Aircraft Y to a 340 heading; given how slow Aircraft Y is he should have been able to stay clear if he had turned at that time. Unknown to me; Aircraft Y was monitoring VHF guard. Sector Y only has the capability to monitor UHF Guard. His voice indicator was still on; leading me to believe that I could communicate with him. I was unable to turn the aircraft to the east away from Aircraft Y because of the restricted airspace. The aircraft were 4.66 miles apart laterally and 700 ft. vertically at the time of loss.I believe when UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are operating in the [named] portion or any other area of the special use airspace area that could be problematic; they should be monitoring a frequency that is available on the controlling sector. If they are not; the voice indicator should be off. Air traffic controller had trouble communicating with aircraft on frequency and experienced difficulty maintaining separation between a UAS and fixed wing aircraft.
Aircraft: A319
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

On descent into CLE on CXR (CHARDON) arrival aircraft deviated from cleared route due to FMS error. Flight crew and ATC simultaneously detected the deviation and ATC reassigned original clearance. Flight crew programmed the intended fix which was published on [charts] page but not in FMS; and proceeded to fix without further incident. Subsequent reloading of arrival regardless of which runway was selected revealed that the LEBRN fix never showed in FMS despite being on published chart. Program FMS to include LEBRN fix on CXR arrival. Also reiterate to flight crews the importance of verifying AND CORRECTING FMS fixes and restrictions on arrival and departure procedures. I think the FMS database needs to be looked at; and corrected; if necessary. With so much focus on altitudes and waypoints on complicated STARs; I think it is easy for us (or at least me) to get complacent when it is a simple STAR with one crossing restriction. An equal amount of focus needs to be placed on all STARS (and SIDs; for that matter); when verifying altitudes and waypoints. An A319 flight crew reported deviating from cleared arrival into CLE when the FMS failed to load all the required waypoints.
Aircraft: LIGHT TRANSPORT; LOW WING; 2 TURBOJET ENG
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

Aircraft X was coordinated inbound with SJU Center at FL340 his altitude options were FL340 or FL390 and they chose FL340 initially; then called and re-coordinated him at FL390; then called back and asked to coordinate him at FL370 climbing to FL390 which I approved reference the Aircraft Y at FL370 which was already coordinated from myself to SJU Center.A minute or two later I received a message from ARINC that the Aircraft X that he was responding to a TCAS alert which he said was 150 feet; not sure if it was above or below him. Not sure what to recommend. ZNY Controller reports of an NMAC due to poor coordination of altitudes between two aircraft and possibly a slow climbing aircraft.
Aircraft: SMALL AIRCRAFT
Phase of flight: Final Approach
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

I was flying Aircraft X; had flown locally for slightly over an hour. Set up for the GPS 5 into SOP on the Garmin; with the ILS/DME 5 in the #2 and SOP in the #2 GPS. There was Aircraft Y; doing touch and go landings flying extremely; extremely tight traffic; landing about once every one and a half minutes. There was no other traffic in the pattern.I intercepted the GPS 5 about 11 miles from the airport; called a 'Moore County traffic; Aircraft X on a 10 mile final GPS 5; full stop landing; Moore County'. I repeated this call at 5 miles. Aircraft Y called turning downwind. Momentarily thereafter I repeated my position report at 2 miles. Aircraft Y immediately called turning base. I immediately transmitted 'Aircraft X on less than a 2 mile final'. Aircraft Y responded 'lots of room' and cut me off; maybe 1;500 feet in front of me. I was flying my approach profile at 120MPH; 105K; so I pulled the throttle to idle; applied full flaps. The distance decreased to about 1;000 feet. I was about to initiate a go-around but Aircraft Y landed and immediately took off again and I was so low and slow that I thought it safer to continue with the landing. I have no idea who was flying Aircraft Y or riding as a passenger.Dangerous non-towered operations are common at SOP and I have so previously reported and something needs to be done before someone gets killed. The airport manager could care less about this kind of behavior and the airport authority is clueless. GA Pilot flying an approach at SOP non-towered airport reported being cut off in the traffic pattern by another aircraft and stated this type of operation is common at the airport and poses a safety hazard.
Aircraft: ECLIPSE 500
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

Initially I was at FL340 enroute to GCK. I was deviating to the NE (just W of DDC) for weather near GCK. There was a line of thunderstorms running from west to east that was just south of GCK. On the XM radar depiction; there appeared to be an opening to get north of that weather and allow me to approach the airfield from the north; clear of the thunderstorms. I requested to stay higher until I got through that weather. As I got into the small opening; the XM radar depiction updated and indicated that some weather had moved into that opening and it was not as clear as I believed it would be. Since I had requested to stay high; I was going to be a potential conflict with some other lower traffic if I were to try to descend into GCK. Therefore; as I was approaching that opening; ATC asked me to descend to FL310; which I did. As I approached FL310; I hit some severe turbulence which was enough to disconnect the autopilot. I immediately dropped about 600-700 FT. I began a climb back to FL310. As I approached FL310; I hit another pocket of severe turbulence; this time gaining approximately 800 FT; putting me in conflict with traffic at FL320 that ATC had originally descended me to avoid. ATC asked why I was climbing again; to which I replied that I had hit some severe turbulence and was descending back to FL310. One of the lessons re-learned is that there is a lag in the NEXRAD data provided by XM. Having used it in conjunction with the onboard weather radar in the past; it has proven very effective in picking through weather and precipitation. This most likely led to some complacency on my part that the hole I was seeing in the weather depiction would be enough for me to get through. However; the hole closed about the same time that I flew through it; causing severe turbulence and large altitude deviations. A better alternative would have been to turn around and divert to an alternate south of the thunderstorms or attempt to go around them to the west. EA-500 pilot reports encountering severe turbulence at FL310 while attempting to avoid thunderstorms using XM Radar and altitude deviations occur. The next XM update showed the gap chosen as closing up.